Pierre-Yves Le Roux1, Matthieu Pelletier-Galarneau2, Romain De Laroche3, Michael S Hofman4, Lionel S Zuckier2, Paul Roach5, Jean-Philippe Vuillez6, Rodney J Hicks4, Grégoire Le Gal7, Pierre-Yves Salaun3. 1. Université Européenne de Bretagne, Université de Brest, EA3878 (GETBO) IFR 148, CHRU de Brest, Service de Médecine Nucléaire, Brest, France Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia pierre-yves.leroux@chu-brest.fr. 2. The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 3. Université Européenne de Bretagne, Université de Brest, EA3878 (GETBO) IFR 148, CHRU de Brest, Service de Médecine Nucléaire, Brest, France. 4. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 6. CHU de Grenoble, Grenoble, France; and. 7. The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada Université Européenne de Bretagne, Université de Brest, INSERM CIC 05-02 IFR148, CHRU de Brest, Département de Médecine Interne et de Pneumologie, Brest, France.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: There are currently no data published regarding the proportion of nuclear medicine centers using SPECT or SPECT/CT rather than planar ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) imaging in patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Furthermore, the reporting criteria used for interpretation of both planar and SPECT V/Q scans are variable and data are lacking regarding which criteria are commonly used in various centers. The aim of this study was to assess current practices regarding the performance and interpretation of lung scintigraphy across 3 different countries. METHODS: A short online survey composed of simple multiple-choice questions was distributed to nuclear medicine departments in Australia, Canada, and France during the period April to December 2014. The survey covered image acquisition, interpretation criteria for SPECT and planar images, and use of pseudoplanar images and radiopharmaceuticals. Information was initially solicited by 2 sets of e-mails, which pointed to the survey internet link. Departments were subsequently contacted by telephone. A single response per department was consolidated. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-one responses were collected (Australia, 74; Canada, 48; and France, 209). Twenty-eight percent of centers indicated use of V/Q planar imaging alone whereas 72% of centers included some form of SPECT in their acquisition protocol for evaluation of PE, specifically V/Q SPECT in 36%, V/Q SPECT/CT in 29%, Q SPECT/CT in 2%, and both V/Q planar and SPECT in 5%, with a strong variability among countries. The most commonly used criteria for SPECT interpretation were the those of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (60%). Criteria used for planar interpretation were heterogeneous (European Association of Nuclear Medicine criteria, 35%; Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis study, 29%; no standardized criteria, 21%). Sixty-three percent of departments used pseudoplanar images in addition to SPECT images. CONCLUSION: In the 3 countries surveyed, SPECT has largely replaced planar imaging for evaluation of PE, with almost half of the SPECT studies incorporating a CT acquisition. Criteria used for interpretation are inconsistent, especially for planar imaging.
UNLABELLED: There are currently no data published regarding the proportion of nuclear medicine centers using SPECT or SPECT/CT rather than planar ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) imaging in patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Furthermore, the reporting criteria used for interpretation of both planar and SPECT V/Q scans are variable and data are lacking regarding which criteria are commonly used in various centers. The aim of this study was to assess current practices regarding the performance and interpretation of lung scintigraphy across 3 different countries. METHODS: A short online survey composed of simple multiple-choice questions was distributed to nuclear medicine departments in Australia, Canada, and France during the period April to December 2014. The survey covered image acquisition, interpretation criteria for SPECT and planar images, and use of pseudoplanar images and radiopharmaceuticals. Information was initially solicited by 2 sets of e-mails, which pointed to the survey internet link. Departments were subsequently contacted by telephone. A single response per department was consolidated. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-one responses were collected (Australia, 74; Canada, 48; and France, 209). Twenty-eight percent of centers indicated use of V/Q planar imaging alone whereas 72% of centers included some form of SPECT in their acquisition protocol for evaluation of PE, specifically V/Q SPECT in 36%, V/Q SPECT/CT in 29%, Q SPECT/CT in 2%, and both V/Q planar and SPECT in 5%, with a strong variability among countries. The most commonly used criteria for SPECT interpretation were the those of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (60%). Criteria used for planar interpretation were heterogeneous (European Association of Nuclear Medicine criteria, 35%; Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis study, 29%; no standardized criteria, 21%). Sixty-three percent of departments used pseudoplanar images in addition to SPECT images. CONCLUSION: In the 3 countries surveyed, SPECT has largely replaced planar imaging for evaluation of PE, with almost half of the SPECT studies incorporating a CT acquisition. Criteria used for interpretation are inconsistent, especially for planar imaging.
Authors: Pierre-Yves Le Roux; Amir Iravani; Jason Callahan; Kate Burbury; Peter Eu; Daniel P Steinfort; Eddie Lau; Beverly Woon; Pierre-Yves Salaun; Rodney J Hicks; Michael S Hofman Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Pierre-Yves Le Roux; Philippe Robin; Cécile Tromeur; Alexandra Davis; Helia Robert-Ebadi; Marc Carrier; Francis Couturaud; Grégoire Le Gal; Pierre-Yves Salaun Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Romain Le Pennec; Amir Iravani; Beverley Woon; Brieg Dissaux; Bibiche Gest; Pierre-Yves Le Floch; Pierre-Yves Salaün; Grégoire Le Gal; Michael S Hofman; Rodney J Hicks; Pierre-Yves Le Roux Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2021-02-16
Authors: David Bourhis; Laura Wagner; Julien Rioult; Philippe Robin; Romain Le Pennec; Cécile Tromeur; Pierre Yves Salaün; Pierre Yves Le Roux Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2021-07-05
Authors: Pierre-Yves Le Roux; Shankar Siva; Jason Callahan; Yannis Claudic; David Bourhis; Daniel P Steinfort; Rodney J Hicks; Michael S Hofman Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 3.138